Arvados

Review feedback:

The issue itself is resolved and also the profile handling works (the original issue where we removed the session cache for user).

However, I have one question.

The issue could have been resolved without resurrecting user session caching and making a change similar to the following (around line 82 of application_controller.rb:

What we have now:

      begin
        build_project_trees
      rescue ArvadosApiClient::ApiError 
      . . . 

Potentially updated as below (either rescue from all errors or add more to the list, especially the Errno::ECONNREFUSED)

      begin
        build_project_trees
      rescue 
      . . . 

I am wondering if updating the rescue statement (either by removing constraints or adding more) is a better solution than resurrecting the session cache.

Thanks.

Radhika Chippada wrote:

The issue could have been resolved without resurrecting user session caching and making a change similar to the following (around line 82 of application_controller.rb:

When we did the error reporting story (#2891), it included this line in the story spec: "Error page should not give the appearance of being logged out if in fact the user is still logged in." Doing this requires storing basic user information in the session. Tom and I discussed this before I wrote the branch, and we came to an agreement that resurrecting the cache, and using it in this more limited fashion, was the best approach to preserve the original story's intent while avoiding the kinds of caching troubles that recently led to its removal.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Brett, would you please add a comment at application_controller -> setup_user_session method line 439 with an explanation that session[:user] is being set only for exception handling and is not used for regular user interactions? If you could throw in this bug #, it would be great. Thanks.